Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
This is where I disagree with the rest of society. Dead people are dead and don’t have rights, so I don’t see how most skulls would be unethical.
So the real question is will it upset the living and how much do you want to accommodate those people’s feelings? I’m not sure there’s a clear and unambiguous answer to this question.
It's always about the living and their feelings. The dead don't care about nothin' because they lack the ability
I think it's a murkier area than you're thinking. What if the skull was of a slave or of a Holocaust victim? I think selling such skulls would be highly unethical.
Does it matter? I understand this could be emotionally sensitive for some people but the only reason I could see this being relevant is if my purchase somehow induced more slavery or genocide. That seems very unlikely—in fact I can think of a number of common purchases people make all the time without a second thought that are far more likely to encourage such crimes.
I would be concerned that a market would take place, where money could be made selling them, creating more incentives to acquire skulls... you see where this is going?
It could also be a bunch of people like me who just dont care, and would totally sell their future empty skull for cash for the family.
I actually want to be cremated and have my remains made into some gems, and I wanted my skull to be kept and the gems mounted into the eyes. My wife vetoed that idea, I thought it would be hilarious. She didn't like the "fine, I'll just get a generic crystal skull or something then" response.
Anyway, once the brain bucket has no more brain to be a bucket for, I personally would be fine with it getting sold off. Couldn't tell you if its what it is or not, but I can definitely see there being plenty of people willing to sell it, without it being some sort of victim of something. I also think its much more likely to not be a victim of something.
I think it does matter, yes. I think it's exploiting a horrific tragedy. You don't know why the person is buying it. Maybe the person is buying the Holocaust victim skull because they're a Neo-Nazi and they intend to stomp on it at a party.
The possible future actions of a morally corrupt bigot have nothing to do with whether or not this collection of bones ought to be sold. I don't think they should be sold just because I think it's weird to purchase a person, even after death. But I don't think there's anything wrong with donating said bones to a research lab. The person who died is gone. They no longer exist. Only their loved ones matter in that they may be upset by the use of their remains.
Bones are relics and relics only have the value we ascribe to them.
Would you say the same about an executed person's organs if they had no next of kin? China should be free to harvest them like they do now? The person who died is gone.
The problem there isn't the use of the organs, but that they're murdering someone to harvest the organs.
How do you know the skull wasn't harvested from the same prisoner?
Sure, if someone died of natural causes. Use them to save someone who is otherwise dying.
That's not what I said.
I'm talking about the treatment of the dead, not China.
I agree with you but I don't think it's intrinsically unethical because they are skulls, but because there might be humans emotionally attached to the remains of the diseased. Those skulls belong to someone (not the dead person anymore), and it is up to that person like with the rest of their property. In this regard, selling the remains of a loved one so you can feed the living, sounds exploitative to me, but I could say the same thing about any other economic injustice. All of with fall under unethical consumption under capitalism.
If no one has a connection to said skull, then I'd agree that it is just a piece of bone, and dealing with it is no more ethical or unethical than with a piece of bone your dog finds outside.
Would you? Why? FWIW I agree that as long as there's a living person who cares about the fate of the bones then selling them would be unethical, I'm just curious as to your specific reasons - like, what is the hypothetical you're imagining, behind this statement? Are you contending it would be unethical even if nobody living cares, just due to the provenance? I can see why you would object if the former user of the anatomy believed in the sanctity of remains, for example.
I'm not sure I'd agree, but I'm not sure I'd disagree either. I'd need to think on it more. Right now, I'm leaning towards respecting the wishes of the dead as far as their remains go, because the universe is big and cruel and the only kindnesses are those we make for each other, so why shouldn't that extend as far as we do?
Because I think there are living people who care about the fate of the bones. You don't think there are lots of people who would object to such things? There are.
This isn't theoretical. People are criticizing museums for having the bones of slaves.
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/democracy-now/clip/bone-rooms-how-elite-schools-and-museums-amassed-black-and-native-human-remains-without-consent
Making it a commercial business makes it unethical. Who's to say they won't be exploiting the poor, desperate people and twisting the legality, cross country loopholes to profit?
Do you think diamonds, lithium, rare metals are ethically sourced too, just because the retailer/marketing says so?
Does exploiting people for profits upset you? How many of the "most" need to be unethical to upset you?
Post like these confirm to people saying only the most lunatic fringe, out of touch with reality left reddit during/after the reddit controversy.
I’m opposed to capitalist exploitation but don’t you think that’s a bit tangential here? Like we don’t see this sort of hand-wringing about buying a video game console.
Personally I try not to participate in capitalist consumption more than necessary, so I wouldn’t buy a skull for that reason. But that’s not why this upsets people. Otherwise they wouldn’t be constantly buying new clothes, gadgets, etc. to amuse them. Those industries are if anything more likely to exploit and harm people, so focus your scrutiny there if you are so concerned with the global workers.
This reminds me of the fake concern for sex workers that is used to shun and exile them from polite society. Yes, sex-workers are exploited, but when you’re using that exploitation as a shield for your real agenda, that needs to be examined critically.
just wanted to note that the fundamental basic of civilization is burying your dead. at least according to archeologists. without honoring those who came before you, we are beasts.
We are beasts. The separation between humans and animals is pure mythology. This idea is part of that myth.
Fine, the dead are dead and don't have rights.
But what about the living relatives and descendants do they have rights?
Dead person or dead person's family donates his body to science. This is usually done under the agreement that when whatever organization is done sciencing with it, it will be respectfully disposed off(cremated or buried) or returned to the next of kin. It is not usually left to the whims of the organization to sell it like scrap parts.
Without traceability for each and every skull there is no assurance that this was done ethically. There are just so many hypothetical scenarios in which this could affect the rights of next of kin. If its not traceable, its not ethical.